Tamron 60mm f2.0 review with Nikon D7100

Thanks for the review, i have never tried this lens myself but it seems to a very underrated and for some reason a bit unknown for many, the fact that its nearly as fast as a normal prime and does full 1:1 macro and being sharp wide open while doing it makes it very interesting.

Nice lens optically, but I had autofocus issues with mine. Long slow focusing with frequent hunting, and the focus was often off both forward and back. For macro, however, it had a nice working distance, just under 6 inches from the front element if I remember correctly. It also has a really nice warm look to it. I liked the lens, but I wish it had a focus limiter and that focus was more accurate.

I sold mine to fund a Nikon 85mm 1.8g which I am much more satisfied with...for portraits at least.

Thanks for this review. I've had 35mm f1.8G and 50mm f1.8G and opted for Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for the practiality. I love the 35mm f1.8 for general photography but I found the 50mm rather soft at 1.8. I'm very happy with my Sigma and so I sold the primes.

Still, recently I've been wanting to get closer shots of my kids and my research has led me to either the Nikon 60mm f2.8 or Tamron 60mm f2.0 macro. The Tamron appears to be the same or better the Nikon.

My only stumbling block was that nobody seems to use these lenses for portrait. 60mm on DX should be perfect for portraits but browsing Flickr groups there are very few samples of portraiture. Everybody wants to shoot flowers and bugs

Your review confirms my conclusions on this lens. Now it's just a matter of finding a seller (in Canada).

I bought this lens for use on my D7000 as a portrait/macro lens. I had been previously using my Nikon 50mm 1.8D and Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro for the same purposes. I have extensively compared the three lenses and I completely agree with the OP.

portraits:

-on DX 60mm is a much nicer focal length than 50. I still like the 90mm FOV, but it is too tight very often for comfortable composition

-at portrait distance (say 3m) at maximum aperture (f/2.2, not f/2) it's sharper than the 50mm and has smoother bokeh. The 90mm does not go to f/2.2 of course, but throws backgrounds more out of focus of course due to it's longer focal length. The bokeh of the 90mm is outstanding, and the 60mm looks just the same, except that it takes longer distance between subject and background.

Macro:

-the 60mm is sharper at every aperture than the 90mm (which is a sharp lens)

-magnification at 1:1 is of course the same (it's 1:1...), and working distance is actually longer on the 60mm. So, unless you move up to a 150-180-200mm, I guess the 60mm is actually the better macro lens.

All around:

- sharpness: wide open the 60mm is sharpest, by a good margin. By f/4 they all look almost the same. they are all very sharp lenses, so one shouldn't sweat it

- autofocus: the 60mm has better autofocus than many reviews state, perhaps it's a matter of sample variation. my copy is quick, quiet, accurate and consistent. It's better than my 90mm (which isn't a great performer in this area), but not as good as the 50mm which is very snappy. the omission of a focus limiter on the 60mm is a pity.

- manual focus: the 60mm isn't pleasing to focus manually, the ring feels coarse and it is difficult to tune focus precisely. in comparison, the 90mm has a veeeery smooth and precise focus ring, it is a pleasure to use. the 50mm almost doesn't have a ring, so it doesn't count. for this isn't a deal breaker (for macro you first move the ring to 1:1, then move the camera back and forth to focus), but for some it may be.

conclusion, the tamron 60mm is a winner for me: it's the perfect portrait lens, it's a very good short macro lens, and a good all around short telephoto.

i just found this post today:

Did you have any problems in shooting handheld with this lens?

(no tripod of course)

nice pics!